ES Parking/Gladstone claimforn - PCN Spinningfields Manchester

[Beamengine]

Ginger,

looking at the very impressive court buildings on either side of one end of Gartside Street

to does look as though this is part of the Canary wharf of the Northern powerhouse.

That indicates that the whole of the 22 acres will eventually become a pedestrian area.

 

 

Google has a link to roadworks in Gartside Street starting next month but the MCC site fails to recognise the link

and even the search on their site gives the same response.

 

Whether the lack of publication on their website could be challenged is not important

but it way explain why I can't find details of earlier applications.

 

 

The road between the court buildings does contain tiny No Stopping notices at the side of the road

and the masterplan shows a cafe area in the road at one end.

All this means that you may very well get an evasive response to your FOI request.

 

It is probably best to file your defence and see whether anything happens.

[ericsbrother]

Ultimately, no stopping is not a parking event and is prohibitive so no contract formed to break.

 

that and the lack of planning consent for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

 

Gladdyd know they will be onto a loser so will probably not pay the allocation fee

 

 

so keep an eye on the clock and ask for the claim to be struck out

or at least stayed if they are more than a day late.

 

 

Ignore their letter to you, deal only with the official lines of communication.

[Beamengine]

I agree, they will have to demonstrate they have cause for action which means all of these points would have to be covered.

 

I too doubt that they will bother to pay the allocation fee. If they don't I would only allow the case to be stayed if they provide valid reasons and then I would request a deadline before the claim is struck out.

[ginger1981]

that and the lack of planning consent for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

Gladdyd know they will be onto a loser so will probably not pay the allocation fee so keep aneye on the clock and ask for the claim to be struck out or at least stayed if they are more than a day late. Ignore their letter to you, deal only with the official lines of communication.

 

Ericsbrother, when you say keep an eye on the clock what do you mean?

I'm still waiting to hear back from the council and Allied London,

so haven't filed defence yet,

but if I haven't heard by next Monday I will be doing anyway (I still have time).

 

 

I may consider a trip over to the council offices to view the maps, even though its a complete pain. If I file my defence, when would I find out if they are going to actually go ahead with it?

 

I agree, they will have to demonstrate they have cause for action which means all of these points would have to be covered.

 

I too doubt that they will bother to pay the allocation fee. If they don't I would only allow the case to be stayed if they provide valid reasons and then I would request a deadline before the claim is struck out.

 

If they don't pay the allocation fee what will happen?

 

 

Will it just disappear, will I get a letter saying its been dropped?!

[dx100uk]

the claim will become autostayed 33 days after you file your defence

you wont get notification of it being stayed

you cant request it be stayed..as said its auto.

 

 

by 4pm 2nd sept is your filing date

[Beamengine]

the claim will become autostayed 33 days after you file your defence

you wont get notification of it being stayed

you cant request it be stayed..as said its auto.

 

When does the clock start ticking for the 33 days?

Is it from the date that both parties receive the allocation questionnaire,

their responses or the date of the track allocation?

 

What are the terms of an autostay?

It would presumably need a court order to lift it but is there a time limit before an application to strike it out be made?

 

I did find this official handbook which is equally useful for defendants:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf

[dx100uk]

go read post 80 eh...

 

 

you as a defendant cannot strike out a claim

[Beamengine]

go read post 80 eh...

 

you as a defendant cannot strike out a claim

 

A defendant can request a stay if, for example, there is an attempt at mediation but only a judge can order a claim to be stayed or struck out.

 

A defendant can make an application for a claim to be struck out because it is vexatious and/or entirely without merit. While the claim is active this can be effected by a counter claim and in this case a claim for distress. The cause of action would be that the claimant did not have reasonable cause to request the keeper details which would be unlawful under the DPA.

 

The claimant can withdraw the claim at any time and this would avoid the counter claim but the possibility of a new claim by the defendant would remain. Does the stay, rather than striking out, mean that a counter claim would still be possible?

[ginger1981]

 

As I suspected ES Parking are a new company and have only started issuing PCNs this year.

 

According to http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/E_S_Parking_Enforcement.html you should ignore them until it gets to a court claim - that is most unusual advice.

 

Apparently they have issued 6573 notices but none of them have got as far as a court hearing i.e. beyond the initial cliam.

 

Wow, 6573 tickets just in the first half of this year is, at the lowest estimate, going to be fines of around £400,000, and that's if they're £60 reduced fines paid in the first instance and don't increase to the £100 or more. Not bad for spurious claims! I wonder how many people contest the PCNs from them, and how many County Court claims they put in?!

[honeybee13]

It shows you they're playing the numbers game, Ginger.

 

Please don't call them fines though, only the police or a court can issue those.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

A defendant can request a stay if, for example, there is an attempt at mediation but only a judge can order a claim to be stayed or struck out.

 

A defendant can make an application for a claim to be struck out because it is vexatious and/or entirely without merit. While the claim is active this can be effected by a counter claim and in this case a claim for distress. The cause of action would be that the claimant did not have reasonable cause to request the keeper details which would be unlawful under the DPA.

 

The claimant can withdraw the claim at any time and this would avoid the counter claim but the possibility of a new claim by the defendant would remain. Does the stay, rather than striking out, mean that a counter claim would still be possible?

 

 

the case has not progressed far enough yet

[ericsbrother]

withdrawing a claim doesnt avoid a counterclaim but I certainly wouldnt advise paying for a counterclaim to be filed as generally you will be in a worse position than they are regarding proof of claim. Harassment, for example has a high threshold.

[Beamengine]

withdrawing a claim doesnt avoid a counterclaim but I certainly wouldnt advise paying for a counterclaim to be filed as generally you will be in a worse position than they are regarding proof of claim. Harassment, for example has a high threshold.

 

Once a claim has been withdrawn with the agreement of the court it is regarded as closed so it is not possible to make a counter claim – it would have to be a new claim.

 

In this case the cause of action would be a breach of the DPA for which compensation for injury to feelings and distress can be claimed under section 13(2).

 

 

The burden of proof would be on the basis that ES Parking unlawfully obtained the personal data because they had no reasonable cause.

 

 

If they have already withdrawn their claim because of that defence they would struggle to explain that and it would be virtually impossible for them to defend if their claim was dismissed.

[Beamengine]

Wow, 6573 tickets just in the first half of this year is, at the lowest estimate, going to be fines of around £400,000, and that's if they're £60 reduced fines paid in the first instance and don't increase to the £100 or more. Not bad for spurious claims! I wonder how many people contest the PCNs from them, and how many County Court claims they put in?!

 

That's peanuts, Parking Eye had 566,418 last year poor things.

[ginger1981]

It shows you they're playing the numbers game, Ginger.

 

Please don't call them fines though, only the police or a court can issue those.

 

HB

 

Definitely, and when you read Parking Prankster and see how much it costs them to go to court, Gladstones are the real winners, even if the claim is thrown out.

Sorry, I know it's not a fine, I'm just programmed to call it that!

 

That's peanuts, Parking Eye had 566,418 last year poor things.

 

Oh my goodness, that's ridiculous.

[Beamengine]

Not as ridiculous as their accounts for 2014

which show a profit of £28M but corporation tax of £0,169M.

That a rate of 0.6% which makes the contributins from Amazon and Starbucks look generous.

 

:censored:Of course Parking Eye are part of the Capita group which runs a large slice of the governement's contracted out services ranging from student loans to civil service pensions.

 

 

It make the Supreme Court's ruling in the Beavis v. Parking Eye so much easier to understand.

After all we all want our privatised NHS car parks to be available to those that can afford to pay for them.

[ericsbrother]

If you counterclaim when you respond to the N1

you pay a fee and the matter can then considered as a separate issue,

even if the plaintiff drops their claim.

 

Normally dealt with by a directions hearing or order.

 

Been there so know why it isnt a good idea, even though it seems like it at the time

[Beamengine]

I agree that Ginger should not counterclaim unless she feels that she would wish to pursue ES Parking for distress as she has indicated if they lose. Even then I would recommend that she simply puts it behind her and get on with the more important things in life.

 

Letting go is difficult but there are times when it is best approach by far. File the defence and wait to see what happens.

[ericsbrother]

You will never win a claim for distress unless you can show that they phoned about 500 times, sent threatening letters of unspecified actions etc. As siad, I have experience of such matters and the threshold is very high, even when the other party has caused actual damage to your property that may well not be enough.

[Beamengine]

I will let you know the outcome of my current claim for £750 following an improprer PCN.

[ginger1981]

I currently have no plans to counterclaim, but believe me, depending on the outcome they won't have heard the last of me.

 

I am chasing up Gladstones today and Manchester Council about the status of the highway, and trying to get my defence written.

 

 

I know I have over a week left, but have been in hospital over the weekend, and may end up there again any time, so just want it sorting asap.

 

Well Manchester Council are being rubbish,

after submitting a request under Freedom of information act on 11th, they still hadn't got back to me, and so when I've just chased it up they've said they will respond soon,

 

 

but pretty much have referred me back to either paying £134 for a copy of the plans, or going viewing them in person, so 12 days waiting for nothing.

 

 

So irritating, they could just look at the plan and tell me over the phone, how hard would that be?!

[Beamengine]

Ginger,

You should send in your defence as soon as possible, there is little point in waiting in any case.

 

It need only be the four points I set out as it is a skeleton set of points and the claimant will have to demonstrate that they can satisfy the judge on all four to succeed. They will struggle to do that even if they do have a basis that the road is private throughtout its length.

 

I agree that it is best under the corcumstances that you do not counterclaim. My reasons and circumstances are different to yours as I believe that ES Parking deserve to be judged as vexatious which would mean that they would have to seek permission from a judge before they could launch any more claims. That would be a complicated claim which would be foolhardy to undertake, leave it to fools like me

[ericsbrother]

if you run out of time submit on the basis of a belief that it is a public highway and let them prove otherwise.

 

they have to prove their claim and provide evidence that they have got everything right,

all you need is at best a balance of probability that your verbal evidence is preferable

if they cant actually show some paperwork for planning , rights of ownership, rights of contract, etc

. their claim will still need to show that there was a breach as described by their paperwork and signage and stopping isnt parking.

 

It appears as though the judges are better read on parking matters and have reached a consensus on many of these claims already heard since Beavis and that is not favouring the plaintiffs when there is even a small reason to doubt it in its entirety.

 

about 3 years ago it seemed to be more of a lottery and a result would be different with the same evidence and arguments according to who was sitting.

 

You would have to be very unfortunate to lose this one.

[ginger1981]

this morning I received a response from Gladstones

saying they would not provide the documents requested

(Contract from Landowners with ES Parking,

proof of extinguishment of Gartside street,

planning permission for their signage)

as these will be in their clients witness statement.

 

"We trust that you agree that the costs that would be incurred in responding to your points at this stage would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim."

 

Erm, no. You need to provide this information for my defence too.

 

I'm actually suprised they responded at all, but I'm sure they'll be issuing a hefty charge to ES for that letter!

[dx100uk]

no they don't need to provide anything to you

nor do you need it to file your defence

 

a CPR is a request, they don't have to comply with a request

 

make them look bad in the judges eye mind.

 

get your defence done.

 

it might not even get to WS stage...willy waving ignore it!